Some people believe that there should be fixed punishments for each type of crime. Others, however, argue that the circumstances of an individual crime, and the motivation for committing it, should always be taken into account when deciding on the punishment. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

A large portion of the population holds the view that certain crimes should carry more severe penalties than

others

,

while

others

argue that the context and intent of a

crime

should always be taken into account when determining a suitable response. In my opinion, each of these possibilities has advantages that strengthen the legal system and contribute to public safety. On one hand, a fixed punishment has several positive outcomes.

First,

having a predetermined penalty for a specific type of

crime

might serve as a deterrent to

others

and serve as an example to

others

who might consider engaging in illegal activity.

As a result

, the

crime

rate goes down, bringing peace and security to the area, and the government has an easier time exerting its authority over the country.

On the other hand

, unintended circumstances,

such

as self-defence, frequently lead to the commission of a

crime

.

While

it's apparent that all wrongdoers should face consequences for their actions, there are times when a man must take potentially dangerous measures to safeguard his human rights.

To conclude

, consequences are established not merely to deter bad actors and maintain peace and order, but

also

to shield the community's good citizens.

Therefore

, consistent punishment is a useful instrument for the legal system to secure its inhabitants;

nevertheless

, it is suggested that the context of each

crime

and the motivation of the offender be considered as well.